About your Search

20121118
20121118
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
, but will the obama administration let it happen or turn an oil boom into a bust? welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot. headed into friday, fiscal cliff talks with congressional leaders, president obama gave us a hit list of his negotiations strategies, repeating his intention to immediately raise tax rates on top earners. >> when it comes to the top 2%, what i'm not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need it which would cost close to a trillion dollars and it's very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars if we're serious about deficit reduction, just by closing loopholes and deductions. the math tends not to work. >> paul: but does the president's math add up? let's ask wall street journal columnist bill mcguerin, and analyst steve moore and washington columnist kim strassel. so, kim, the president won reelection, was this the hand of magnimty reaching out to the republicans? >> it's crazy, it's what the president says all the time. if you listen to the press conference, he seems to say the biggest wish list for his liberal partisans
in distress and obama's eternalistic bravado of a top administrative official is going to come back to haunt him. she's a big girl in a big position and she should defend herself and what she said. >> i don't think it's necessarily a right wing smackdown of susan rice, it's the liberal media make it go about john mccain's comments about susan rice and john mccain never used the word filibuster. he said he would have serious issues susan rice as secretary of state. i agree with judy, what is susan rice doing representing the administration on these talk shows? she had nothing to to do with this, why is she the point person. >> it's not her fault. maybe have an administration with putting her out there, but not to say she shouldn't be secretary of state because she's somehow wrong here, but we have a fair amount of excavating to do, and on friday, peter king, i think an exclusive for fox and megyn kelly saying listen we now know that the cia, peter king knows that the cia initial chronology, benghazi's acts was altered somewhere along the way, did susan rice alter it herself, does she know who
-- is not a biographer to come on, colby. >> is the obama administration guilty of a cover-up in the benghazi attack? >> i think she knew better, and if she did no better, she should not be the voice of america. . >> for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous. >> they're talking about our u.n. ambassador, who could be the president's nominee to be secretary of state. this is about her appearance on talk shows on september 16 following the september 11 attacks in benghazi. charles krauthammer, our friend here, who is off this week -- i think he is in miami traveling -- has been hammering away at this for weeks but he said that it was fun cover story in the run-up to the election. what do we know about this? .> we don't know yet maybe the intelligence committees have some notion, but we really don't know yet. they are still conducting the investigation within the state department. it seems like there were 85 things going on at once. i am not cle
of the surveillance in the wake of 9/11. thanks to the petri at act and continued under the obama administration. the government has more access to info about us than at anytime in history. a small example of what this looks like. check out this graph of u.s. government from google. these are requests that don't require warrants and this doesn't include the security related requests not disclosed. for awhile, i thought the combination of these trends, the u bik wiity of technology was pushing us to a future where citizens would be unable to keep their secrets while the government keeps its secrets. i feared it would end up totally exposed to each other and the state. the state and its doing and what it's doing in our name would be a mystery. then miraculously, but also inevitably, they collided with each other in the petraeus affair. the four-star general's communications with broadwell reveal a lot of mundane personal failings. really, it seems not anything scandalous as far as the public's fear goes. the only possible scandal, as far as i can tell, is the conditions which the fbi came to read
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)